How Much Will GO Electrification Cost? (Update 3)

Updated 10:15 am, June 27: Metrolinx has decided to release GO’s electrification studies without a formal Freedom of Information request. They will be available online sometime in the next two weeks once they are converted to a suitable format.

Updated 12:30 am, June 23: A list of existing commuter rail operations including those with electrified operation has been added at the end in response to a bogus claim in a Metrolinx FAQ.

Updated 9:50 am, June 23: Another Caltrain newsletter shows the benefits of electrification and the benefits of EMU operation.

Much of the debate on the Weston corridor study, formally known as the Georgetown South Service Expansion (GSSE) Environmental Assessment, focuses on noise, vibration and pollution effects from the substantial addition to train traffic in the corridor. One major option, electrification, was not included in the EA on the premise that this conversion will, possibly, be done sometime in the future, but not now.

Responding to public pressure, Metrolinx will launch a detailed study of system-wide electrification for GO. The first step will be to strike a consultative committee of various interested members of the public to advise on the terms of reference for the study. The committee should be appointed by the Metrolinx Board in July 2009. Once the terms are nailed down, the study itself is expected to take until the end of 2010.

Alas, this is far enough in the future that it will have little outcome on what is actually built in the short term. Also, by looking at the full network, and having cited very high figures for a complete conversion, I can’t help wondering if Metrolinx hopes to derail support for a movement to electrify “now”.

Unfortunately for Metrolinx, GO has already studied electrification of the Lake Shore corridor first in 1992, then an update in 2001, and, I understand, another update in mid-2008. Do we really need another study for this most important of GO corridors? Can we estimate, broadly, the cost of converting the Georgetown corridor based on the Lake Shore study?

Metrolinx was asked to release the Lake Shore studies, but in a splendid example of contempt for the public, they require a Freedom of Information request to release documents we all know to exist in the first place. As of June 26, the requirement for an FOI request was dropped, and Metrolinx will post all of the GO studies online within the next two weeks once they have been formatted for that medium.

The FAQ for the electrification study (linked above) states:

Q. Hasn’t a study already been done?

A. Yes. A smaller study was done for the Lakeshore West line only.

Well, no, actually the April 2001 update covers Oshawa to Hamilton. Moreover, this may not be the entire system, but it is certainly the heart of GO’s network and information here gives order-of-magnitude values that can be used when looking at other lines.

Realistically, the only lines that will be considered for electrification in the short term are Lakeshore East/West and Georgetown. Nobody expects us to electrify the CPR to Bolton for a few trains a day, and the service proposed to Richmond Hill in the Metrolinx Regional Plan requires major changes in track capacity, never mind electrification, to implement.

Any study of the system should proceed along a fairly simple path:

Validate the 2008 Lake Shore study and update it to adjust for current conditions.

Separate costs associated with Union Station that would be shared with other corridors (this allows realistic cost per kilometre comparisons)

Study the Georgetown corridor to a similar level of detail as already done for Lake Shore.

Consider any network implications (operational strategies, equipment requirements) for a configuration in which part of the network is electrified and part is not.

Review the tradeoffs between pure electric and dual mode locomotives, as well as the option of a fleet of self-propelled electric cars (EMUs)

Detailed review of other corridors is complicated both by the light level of service (and low return in a financial or environmental sense for electrification), and by the likelihood that some corridors would be significantly reconfigured to handle more intensive service with or without electrification.

In the interest of getting some numbers on the table, it is worth reviewing the 2001 update of the Lake Shore study of which I have a copy (sorry, not in electronic format). One of the most interesting statements appears quite early on:

An implementation scehdule of almost three years was determined for the project including a 14-month planning and approval period before any on-site work can commence. On this basis, revenue service for the electrified line could be targeted for the first quarter of 2004 [three years after the date of this document]. [Page ii]

The summary goes on to conclude:

In the economic analyses … the existing diesel operation demonstrates an economic advantage over the introduction of an electrified railway.

The vital word here is “existing diesel operations” as the study appears to have been based on the level of service existing in 2001 with some modest additions in future decades. Service levels now planned for the Lake Shore and other corridors substantially exceed those operated or contemplated in 2001. The modelled electrical requirements were based on actual 2001 schedules.

In the current context, one of the study objectives is worth noting:

Given the significant environmental benefits of an electrified railway, such as reduced levels of air and noise pollution and the potential for improved service levels due to the better performance of electric locomotives, the opportunity to implement electrification at reduced cost must be fully examined and pursued if considered feasible.

The “reduced cost” mentioned here refers to then-available second-hand electric locomotives whose purchase could lower the capital cost of conversion. Whether a similar situation with available equipment exists today is worth reviewing as part of the overall study.

The capital cost buildup for electrification has the following components over the period 2001-2025, the timeframe of the study:

Diesel locomotives: 10 in 2006, 14 in 2007 and 4 in 2021. $145.6-million.

24 new bilevel cars (12 in 2007, 12 in 2021) that are needed only for diesel option because of better fleet utilization with electric operation. $62.4-million.

Subtotal: $208-million

Overhead Catenary System (OCS) and Related Work

These costs are unique to the electric scenario:

Overhead catenary: $56.9-million

Traction power substations (3): $24.5-million

Hydro connections: $35-million

Signal modifications: $47.8-million

Overhead clearance program: $39-million

OCS maintenance facility: $3-million

Property approvals/permits: $1-million

Subtotal: $207.2-million

Note that this is for about 114 route-km or a cost of about $2-million/km. This seems rather low compared to other projects, and this may be due to assumptions about the availability of second hand equipment. Conversely, this total includes signal and trainshed modifications at Union which have, in practice, already been incorporated in the reconstruction projects now underway. Therefore these are not net costs chargeable to an electrification decision, but part of the ongoing provision that has been made for this option.

Comparison of the Options

The totals for the two options are:

Electric: $454.2-million (NPV $326-million)

Diesel: $208.0-million (NPV $149-million)

One important note here is that the Net Present Value calculations are not shown in detail. In particular, it is unclear whether the residual capital value of assets is considered. Those new electric locomotives purchase right at the end of the study period would have a very large residual value that should not be included in the NPV for the electric rolling stock.

It is likely that this is not accounted for because the ratio of total capital costs above (2.18:1) is also the same for the NPV values. This implies that there is no allowance for residual value. Indeed a worst-case scenario has been presented by placing a locomotive fleet replacement right at the end of the study period and failing to recognize that most of its value will be consumed in years beyond the end of the study. This is not just bad accounting, but a serious skewing of the financial comparison.

Operating Costs

I will not go into the details of the operating costs, but they have been broken down by year showing the changes as service improvements are factored in and allowing infrequent costs (major overhauls) that appear only in certain years.

Power costs are consistently less than half of the cost of diesel fuel. Maintenance and overhaul costs are also lower.

This leads to NPV values on the operating side of the accounts of:

Electric: $119-million

Diesel: $199-million

Total Net Present Value

Combining the capital and operating figures gives a base case for the 25-year period of:

Electric: $445-million

Diesel: $348-million

Alternative Scenarios

Various alternative scenarios were considered as a sensitivity analysis.

Cases 1 and 2: Energy costs go up by 10% and 20% for both modes. Since the electric costs are roughly half of diesel costs, both of these have a higher effect on the diesel option raising the latter by about $12-million relative to electric for case 2.

Case 3: Escalation rate changed from 3% to 4%. Again, because the base case for diesel is already higher, this affects diesel disproportionately adding $11-million to the NPV relative to the base case.

Case 4: The cost of signal and trainshed roof modifications at Union Station are assumed to be borne by the Union Station project. This is what actually happened, and so this cost has already been incurred for either option. This knocks $50-million off of the NPV for the capital cost of electrification.

None of these changes, by itself, overcomes the $103-million difference between electric and diesel.

Summary

For all cases, the electric option remains the more expensive, but to this I raise caveats:

The treatment of residual value in the net present value calculation artificially inflates the NPV for the electric option.

The relative and absolute prices for electric and diesel power need to be adjusted to current and likely future values and trends. In particular, we cannot assume that both types of energy will rise in cost in the same manner over time.

The cost of infrastructure changes at Union is no longer in the equation, and this effectively makes Case 4 the new base.

The degree to which assumptions about the availability of second hand equipment and parts might still be valid, and the degree to which this affects the overall comparison, needs to be verified and factored into the discussion.

The claim that this would be a three-year project from planning to implementation must be verified. We need a realistic construction projection to work backward from any “hard” dates for actual operation. In particular, we need to know whether this plan would be subject to a full-blown two-year environmental assessment.

If the estimates in past studies are seriously flawed, why? Did GO’s consultants not understand what they were doing? If they are substantially correct, why are current claims for electrification costs so high?

Even if I take the Lake Shore electrification projections on a raw basis from the 2001 study, the marginal capital cost (with all its faults) between electric and diesel options is $246.2-million (2001$), and this would generate an ongoing operational saving. How much depends on the degree to which actual service improvements exceed those used in the model because electric operations are inherently cheaper.

For the Weston/Georgetown corridor, implementation is not as straightforward as on the Lake Shore because of the branched service design. In the short term, it is likely that we would see only the Georgetown and Airport services electrified (assuming we could ever get SNC-Lavalin on board with that), with expanded service on the Milton line to follow. Service to Bolton is planned only for peak periods and could never offset the capital cost. Service to Barrie may be a candidate eventally, but it only runs for a short distance in the Weston corridor branching off at Dundas Street.

GO/Metrolinx has a lot of work to do in updating past studies, but they need to recognize that starting from scratch isn’t an option. Moreover, they must avoid burdening the overall review with a great deal of work on corridors that are low priority or hopeless candidates for electrification. Certainly we don’t need to know how much electrification to Bolton or Peterborough would cost as a pre-requisite to meaningful information about the Weston corridor.

Update: List of North American Commuter Rail Operations

In the FAQ concerning electrification, Metrolinx states:

Q. Is GO Transit the only commuter operator in Canada and North America still buying diesel locomotives? What about the rest of the world?

A. No it is not. 99 per cent of the North American commuter rail network operates diesel engines. Many transit authorities use similar locomotives and cars as GO Transit. Some examples: Florida’s Tri-Rail, Seattle’s Sounder, California’s Metrolink and Caltrain, Vancouver’s West Coast Express and Montreal’s AMT.

The following information was supplied to me by Greg Gormick, a reputable source of information about the railway industry.

The U.S. and Canadian commuter rail operators are:

GO

AMT

West Coast Express

MBTA

Connecticut DOT (Shore Line East and Metro-North New Haven Line)

Metro-North

NJT

LIRR

SEPTA

MARC

Virginia Rail Express

Tri-Rail

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (South Shore Line)

Metra

North Star (the Minneapolis service that begins operation later this year or next)

Trinity Rail Express (Dallas-Fort Worth)

Front Runner (Salt Lake City)

Rail Runner (Albuquerque)

Coaster (San Diego)

Metrolink (Los Angeles)

Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton-San Jose)

Caltrain

Sounder (Seattle).

Portland’s Tri-Met is now operating one DMU line and Austin is about to launch one later this year. I guess you could throw Ottawa’s O-Train in there, too, if we’re going to include DMU service, although it’s more LRT than commuter rail.

Metrolinx cleverly tries to give the impression that everyone is running diesel when in fact many operators run a mixture of both technologies, each taking its appropriate place. It is true, only in the most narrow sense, to say that “99% of the industry runs diesel”, but that is not the same as saying “99% of commuter rail operations are diesel powered”, the impression Metrolinx is clearly trying to achieve.

The GO Transit study is quite clear that there are operational and environmental benefits of electrification, but Metrolinx would have us believe that electric trains are a minor part of the rail industry. I can’t help thinking back to the 1970s when the Ontario Government bamboozled everyone into believing that LRT didn’t exist and we had to invent it in the form of ICTS. People travel. They know what transit and commuter systems look like in other cities.

Metrolinx needs to embrace honesty and openness if they expect public credibility.

40 thoughts on “How Much Will GO Electrification Cost? (Update 3)”

Caltrain, which runs San Francisco-San Jose-(Gilroy), is also in the midst of electrifying its one line, which runs in a service pattern that is quite similar to that of the Lakeshore Line, with hourly all-day, 7-day service, plus express and a rush hour-only service to Gilroy.

Where would reliable second hand engines come from? Electric motive power lasts a long time. Off hand I can’t think of any operation that is about to get rid of any electric engines or mu’s that GO would find to be suitable.

The only second hand engines GO ever owned were the ex Rock Island GP40’s.

Obama stimulus initiatives may make some equipment available second-hand.

What was the price of oil in 2001? What impact would it have on the above figures? I think it is reasonable to presume that at this stage, electric would be less than half of diesel, unless the MP40s have significant maintenance advantages of their own.

In response to Dave O’Rourke’s question, the answer is that there will soon be a lot of good used electric motive power on the market. All of them are derived from the highly successful Swedish State Railways Rc4 and Rc6 thyristor locomotives developed by Asea (later ABB and then Adtranz).

Philadelphia’s SEPTA currently has one ALP44 for sale and will soon be selling its seven older AEM7 units as it moves to full EMU service with its new Rotem Silverliner V cars.

NJ Transit recently announced it would expand its order for Bombardier Kassel-built ALP46 “motors” (based on the Deutschebahn BR101) rather than rebuild its AEM7/ALP44 fleet. That will put up to 32 units on the market.

As well, Amtrak’s recently increased federal funding means it can move on its plan to replace its 49-unit AEM7 fleet. Of these, 29 were fully rebuilt in 2000-2002 with AC traction gear.

All of these locomotives are eminently suitable for refurbishment and decades of additonal use by GO hauling BiLevel rolling stock.

It should be noted that GO’s 2001 electrification study was based on the use of refurbished General Electric E60C locomotives acquired from the abandoned Nationales de Mexico electrification scheme, along with the catenary and associated gear from that line and the abandoned BC Rail Tumbler Ridge operation. Had the philistines in the Mike Harris government opted for that (faint hope), we would now have a Lakeshore corridor that had been electrified at a fraction of what it is now going to cost taxpayers.

Having seen the 2008 report, I know it doesn’t take account of the fact that journey times will fall, revenue increases. This extra revenue should (well, must) be included in the NPV figures. Improving Lakeshore times by 10% could raise produce roughly an extra $15m in revenue per year (based on 25m rides [Wikipedia] at an average price of $6/ride [my guess], and the fact that a 1% decrease in journey time leads to a 1% increase in revenue). Over 25 years with (a pessimisitc) 10% discount rate, that would yield an NPV of $140m – more than the difference between the diesel and electric option. Plus, as you pointed out, it will cost $50m less than previously stated due to Union improvements.

I would find it hard to believe that there is any significant price different between diesel and electric locomotives. If anything, electric locomotives should be cheaper.

Justin Bernard said “The rest of world” operates electric engines on main commuter lines. Actually, I would have thought EMUs are more common than electric locos plus carriages for commuter services, but I could be wrong. Anyone able to shed more light on that?

Tom, you alluded to revenue increases due to falling travel times. Other than the obvious (shorter travel times make it more attractive to riders), how else do the two relate?

As for prices, electric locos are more expensive in North America as there isn’t the infrastructure (in terms of manufacturing or operation) here – therefore, all units are limited-production and built off-shore. The ALP46(A) is as close as we’ve got to a modern, mass-produced electric motor, and the unit cost is in the neighbourhood of $7mil each, almost $2mil more than a comparable diesel (the MP40).

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Steve: When comparing capital costs, you also need to look at how much equipment would be needed. If, for example, you can improve trip times by 1/6, then you only need five electric locos ($35-million) to do the work of six diesel ($30-million). There’s also the question of engine lifespan and ongoing maintenance costs for the two modes, not to mention the relative price of energy.

Steve: I apologize for my unfamiliarity with these technical debates, but in what sense would being able to pull a train the length of a line in ~17% less time mean that only 5 locomotives are required in place of 6? What of the 6th train’s passenger load? Or does the comparison you refer to only care about the distance a fleet can cover in a given time period, disregarding the actual requirements as dictated by demand, etc.?

Steve: Suppose that you have a line that requires one hour for a round trip using diesel locomotives. If you want to run a 10 minute service, it will take 6 locomotives (and 6 trains) to do this. However, for lines such as GO’s typical operation, some saving in running time is possible because of better acceleration. Therefore if electric trains can do the round trip in 50 minutes, you only need 5 locomotives (and trains) to provide the same service and capacity.

Conversely, if you want to have more stops, with diesel trains this affects performance and the round trip time would go up (along with the number of trainsets needed). With electric operation, the penalty is much lower and you could net out using the same number of trains as with diesel to provide service to more closely spaced stops along a route.

Steve, there seems to be a problem with the analysis here in assuming that replacing diesel locos with electric ones would result in reduced trip times. The report states it, and you reiterate this in an above post.

Robert Wightman posted in another article:

“The one thing that you do not want in commuter service is to electrify then run locomotive hauled coaches. They will not accelerate any faster than diesels though they can haul more coaches and achieve a higher top speed. That is why they are used for long distance trains that have few stops since the top speed determines running times and not acceleration. Commuter service depends on acceleration rates and not top speed. This needs self propelled cars.”

He added a lot of physics to back it up, but basically it comes down to the frictional coefficient of steel wheels on steel rails; whether you have one form of power or another, the conversion of said power to motion will rely on the wheels gripping the steel, and they’re already operating at their limit.

Service improvements come from the use of EMUs rather than electric locomotives.

Steve: Looking at Caltrain’s publicity material for their electrification (linked at the top of the main post), they expect to get some improvement from switching to electric locos, and further improvement by going to EMUs. Your and Robert Wightman’s point is well taken, and we need to know what the real situation is here. It is possible that the 2001 study assumed there was still some headroom for additional tractive effort based on shorter trains.

As you can see from some of my critique, I do not hold that the 2001 study is anywhere near perfect, but it shows that some work has been done, and presumably more in the 2008 update that I do not have. Once we drag all of this out into the open, we can have an intellident discussion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember hearing years ago when they where talking about electrification of the GO line that the Bi-Level trains GO is using were electrification-ready and all they needed was motors, pantographs and a cab car where the locomotive would be.

Steve: It’s more complicated than that because converting an unpowered car to an EMU requires not just the installation of a pantograph, but also of the electrical gear to transform and control the power. Also, the trucks now under the bilevels may not be physically capable of holding electric motors. I will leave this to others who know the intimate details of these cars for further comment.

What is sometimes not counted with locomotives is maintenance costs. I would expect that the maintenance costs of a diesel locomotive over the life of the locomotive to be considerably higher then the cost of an electric.

Steve: This shows up in the detailed projections used in the 2001 study.

Tom’s question about electric locomotive-hauled commuter services vs. EMU operation is a good one. It’s something that should be investigated in the promised study by Metrolinx — although their limited research abilities to date suggest this wouldn’t even cross their collective minds.

Railway Age managing editor Doug Bowen has an excellent article on this question in the magazine’s June issue, which is available online at http://www.railwayage.com.

The advantage of EMU equipment is that acceleration and braking are not affected by train length. They also exert somewhat lower dynamic forces on the track structure.

However, electric locomotive haulage does have its role, too. It is employed on this continent by NJ Transit, SEPTA (at least until they receive their problem-plagued Rotem Silverline V EMUs) and Baltimore’s MARC. It is still subject to study by Caltrain as part of their 2025 Plan, which will electrify the San Francisco-San Jose portion of their operation in concert with the California HSR project.

A complication in North America is the lack of FRA-compliant bilevel EMUs. Metra and the South Shore Line in Chicago have gallery EMUs (not full bilevels) that meet the safety specs, but there is nothing else available off the shelf. Caltrain is exploring the possibility of using European non-FRA-compliant equipment under a temporal separation arrangement that would keep Union Pacific freight trains off their line during commuter operating hours.

There are numerous commuter operations in Europe that use electric locomotives push-pulling bilevel rolling stock. Many of these operations use Alstom and/or Bombardier rolling stock, some of it suuplied jointly by the two companies.

The advantages of electric locomotive-hauled operation for GO would include the ability to stick with a uniform fleet of Bombardier BiLevels and the low first cost of acquiring some of the less-than-life-expired motive power that will soon be available on the used equipment market.

Only one big question really remains: Is Metrolinx serious about electrification or is this just another one of their come ons to make us believe they really are forward looking and they know what they’re doing? I remain to be convinced.

Actually, Tri-Rail in Miami is operating the former Colorado Railcar bilevels as three car motor-trailer-motor sets. I don’t really know anything about who’s behind it, but the Colorado designs have been bought, and are currently being marketed by a group call American Railcar Company (http://www.amrailco.com/). I’ve also heard that there wasn’t actually any proprietary equipment on these cars. All in all it’s a bit of a stretch to say there is no off the shelf bilevel DMU.

I think the Metrolinx argument about Gallery cars not having the same capacity as a GO Bi-Level is a bit of a stretch. Based on Illinois Central Gulf Railway, the seated load has a difference of only 6 per car (156:162), and a difference of 20 crush (256:276). A 12-car gallery train would carry ~1,870 instead of ~1,920 (lower capacity of cab car in calculation). Metrolinx will fall short of its 24,000/hr target capacity with either model, by seated capacity, at every 5 minutes’ frequency. Both models would require 13 trains per hour, strictly speaking, to break the 24,000 peak demand Metrolinx is projecting.

How convenient that GO can even use “North American operators” for comparison. GO outperforms everyone on this continent in ridership numbers. If they want to be realistic, they’ll compare themselves with the systems around the world who have a similar load.

“I think the Metrolinx argument about Gallery cars not having the same capacity as a GO Bi-Level is a bit of a stretch. Based on Illinois Central Gulf Railway, the seated load has a difference of only 6 per car (156:162), and a difference of 20 crush (256:276). A 12-car gallery train would carry ~1,870 instead of ~1,920 (lower capacity of cab car in calculation). Metrolinx will fall short of its 24,000/hr target capacity with either model, by seated capacity, at every 5 minutes’ frequency. Both models would require 13 trains per hour, strictly speaking, to break the 24,000 peak demand Metrolinx is projecting.”

I have one major problem with the gallery cars and that it they are butt ugly inside. The upstairs area is not a nice place to be. I also felt that they were slower to load and unload with their single, but wide, centre door.

CANADA: Agence Métropolitaine de Transport and Hydro-Québec agreed on May 5 to invite proposals for a study to determine the feasibility of electrifying four of Montréal’s commuter rail routes totalling 250 km.

Only one line, the Deux-Montagnes, is now operated by electric traction. Converting the Dorion, Blainville and Delson routes would cost more than C$300m, according to an AMT estimate. The Mont-St-Hilaire line was not included in the figure but will be part of the study. Electrification, if approved, could be installed over 15 years, beginning in 2011, with Hydro-Québec contributing to the cost.

Meanwhile, an environmental report released on May 8 by the Québec Bureau d’Audiences Publiques en Environnement has endorsed plans for the proposed Train de l’Est commuter rail project to Repentigny and Mascouche. But the BAPE report said AMT had not demonstrated that the proposed alignment was the best option. The electrified route would add an estimated 11 000 weekday riders; the existing AMT system carries 16 million passengers a year, the sixth largest commuter rail ridership in North America.”

There are AMT presentation PDFs which briefly describe the electrification of the Deux-Montagnes and Dorion-Rigaud lines on this page http://amt.qc.ca/corpo/presentations.asp, the latest 2 PDFs. They are en francais, and frustratingly lacking of detail.

Gallery vs. BiLevel? Let’s not let our enthusiasm cloud the facts. Here’s what I wrote for a Bombardier backgrounder back in 2007:

“GO was faced with costly and less-than-optimal responses. James A. Brown, retired executive director of GO operations, was a member of the team responsible for meeting this challenge. He recalls, ‘Our choices were either to extend beyond 10-car trains – which would have meant lengthening the station platforms and making many expensive infrastructure changes – or go up. Chicago, San Francisco and Montreal had gone to the so-called double-deck cars, but they really weren’t. They were gallery cars.’

“A set of Montreal galley cars was tested. Brown says, ‘GO passengers were intrigued because they were different, but they found them cramped because of the overhanging galleries. With those narrow aisles and staircases, they took seven times longer to clean than our single-level cars, driving the costs up. And we didn’t like the placement and number of doors, which led to longer loading and unloading times than we wanted.’

“In what was then a novel approach to purchasing, GO drafted a comprehensive list of the advances required and then challenged manufacturers to meet them. Among these were:

• increase capacity and reduce per-seat costs with a full double deck;
• minimize weight through the use of advanced materials that maximized safety;
• improve passenger flow to reduce boarding and unloading times;
• compatibility with high- and low-level station platforms and single-level cars;
• head end power system for heating, air conditioning and lighting;
• push-pull operation; and
• convertibility from locomotive-hauled to self-propelled diesel or electric operation.

“’This was before computer-assisted design systems,’ says Brown. ‘We began playing on paper, sketching out ideas drawn from all the designs in existence worldwide, such as the American gallery cars, the dome cars and the very few double-deckers that had been built in Europe and Australia. It was obvious from those few true bi-levels that we had to drop the floor between the trucks to provide for a full upper deck within the clearance limits.’

“The traditional passenger car consisted of a car body built on an extremely heavy, straight frame supported by the trucks or wheelsets. Standard floor height was 4’3” (1,295 mm) end-to-end. Building a full deck over top of this lower level would produce cars exceeding the vertical clearance limits of most railroads. A frame that dipped or dropped down between the wheels would overcome this. It had only been achieved – with high complexity, weight and cost – in sightseeing dome cars and a few other intercity cars. But these designs were too specialized and expensive for commuter applications. And the few foreign double-deck cars were too light for North America, where trains are built to heavier standards.

“The BiLevel car was the first in North America to decisively overcome this challenge. The main floor was dropped to 2’1” (635 mm) above the rails, allowing for a full upper deck and requiring only two small steps up from station platforms to the wide doors on the lower level. Advanced engineering and a low-alloy, high-tensile steel frame made this possible. The BiLevel car’s design also lowered the center of gravity, making for a smoother and safer ride.”

I’m as keen as the next guy to see GO electrify several of its current or potential lines. Let’s not overstate the case with information that those bastions of knowledge at Metrolinx — and their co-dependent consultants — can overturn.

I agree completely with Greg that “Gallery cars don’t cut it.” Having ridden the Chicago Metra gallery cars, they are indeed very cramped, slow to exit & enter, and seem to have alot less standee capacity than an equivalent Bombardier bilevel. The Gallery cars would be a nightmare to exit in an emergency.

This would require designing appropriate power cars, possibly from the existing cab car stock, but would likely involve less customisation of the standard bilevels themselves. It would also eliminate the distinction between one “end” and another in the current push-pull environment when looking at through-running one non-Lakeshore line to another. I’m not familiar with the regulatory view on top and tail running in Canada (for example as the Amtrak Vermonter does) so there could be some issues there perhaps.

Electric locomotives and existing cab/trailer sets could form a bridge to this if there was any likelihood CN would take them on once EMUs or powercars were delivered.

“This would require designing appropriate power cars, possibly from the existing cab car stock, but would likely involve less customisation of the standard bilevels themselves. It would also eliminate the distinction between one “end” and another in the current push-pull environment when looking at through-running one non-Lakeshore line to another. I’m not familiar with the regulatory view on top and tail running in Canada (for example as the Amtrak Vermonter does) so there could be some issues there perhaps.”

CN and CP both operate intermodal and other trains out west with a locomotive at either end. It reduces the forces on the coupler knuckle behind the lead locomotive and reduces the time required for a brake application to take effect. VIA will run trains with locomotives in the middle when they are going to split the train in two, Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal. The trains are designed to run with a locomotive at either end when there are more than 7 or 8 cars but I don’t know if they still do this. When they did this each locomotive would provide head end power for one side of the train. The lead locomotive would provide power for the right side of each car and the trail for the left side. This way if they lost one of the locomotives each car would have half the lighting and heating or cooling.

As I keep saying it is not worth the money to electrify unless you go full EMU service. GO will be able to absorb most of the existing bilevels with the service expansions planned. Buying electric locomotives with the idea of being able to sell them is a waste of time and money. They would need a head end power conditioning unit to provide hotel power to the train and this would be a waste of money that no one else would want to pay for. Remember GO’s head end power is 600 V three Phase and all the US and VIA is 480/500 V. CN and CP would not want to pay for it even if they decided to electrify.

This just in from a reliable source: let’s not even THINK of refurbished used electric locomotives for GO. But start thinking of new ones hauling BiLevels.

Just one question: How are we going to get trains like these to operate over the Blue 22 spur line when a certain departed Pearson honcho had the terminal loop specifically engineered to NOT take the weight of existing GO and VIA motive power? We wouldn’t have wanted to really mess up PIA’s parking revenue stream by making the place fully intermodal and interconnected, would we?

“This just in from a reliable source: let’s not even THINK of refurbished used electric locomotives for GO. But start thinking of new ones hauling BiLevels.

“Just one question: How are we going to get trains like these to operate over the Blue 22 spur line when a certain departed Pearson honcho had the terminal loop specifically engineered to NOT take the weight of existing GO and VIA motive power? We wouldn’t have wanted to really mess up PIA’s parking revenue stream by making the place fully intermodal and interconnected, would we?

“Inquiring minds want to know!”

Greg:

Don’t think any kind of electric locomotive. The one good thing that Blue 22 did was make it impossible for locomotives to run on there line. There high platform stations are only long enough for three 85 foot cars so where would you stick the locomotive. Read the reports on EMU’s. I don’t care if they all have to be inspected every 92 days; the cost and time savings are worth it. There is about a 30% reduction in equipment required to run EMU as opposed to diesel hauled coaches. Instead of 120 coaches and 10 locomotives you only need 84 EMU coaches for the same level of service and the passengers get to their destination 30% faster and you only need 30% of the crews. You could probably get away with two man crews instead of three so you would need 14 crew members versus 30. I have never figured out why a locomotive hauled train requires two people in the locomotive plus a conductor while an EMU only needs a motorman plus a conductor but I will not argue against it.

I have no problem with single deck EMU on the YYZ service. In a constrained platform you want to maximise the number of seats per unit length. Given the rollercoaster nature of the alignment plan from Woodbine to T1 I don’t think I’d fancy being in a bilevel anyway.

However, on the mainline I think there’s scope for looking at electric locomotive power if we want to get past the “diesel killer” label being attached to expansion of GO Georgetown in the short-medium term. It surely must be the case that 10 electric locos (say) could be acquired in less time than 100 new bilevel EMU carriages.

“Robert Wightman: CP hasn’t figured out why the locomotive needs 2 people, either. Milton GO Trains run with 2-man crews for the train, not 3 like the Bombardier-staffed lines.”

I did not know that as I have only ridden the line once and have not been at Milton to see what they do when they reverse. I guess since CP doesn’t run passenger trains that they must think it is a freight train; maybe cattle cars with cargo that will automatically unload themselves.

Mark Dowling Said: “Given the rollercoaster nature of the alignment plan from Woodbine to T1 I don’t think I’d fancy being in a bilevel anyway.”

It’s really no different a “rollercoaster” than the Yonge subway. The slopes are about the same. The vertical and horizontal scales in the diagrams are not the same units, making slopes look much steeper than they actually are. There’s no reason the same rolling stock can’t be used for the airport service as the Brampton/Georgetown service.

Re: Milton line/CP/two-man crews vs. other lines/Bombardier/three-man crews and reversing.
Surely when a train with a two-man crew needs to head back the other way, the driver gets out, walks down the other end of train and then moves?

What does the third crew member on Bombardier trains do?

Robert Wightman said “The one good thing that Blue 22 did was make it impossible for locomotives to run on the line. There high platform stations are only long enough for three 85 foot cars so where would you stick the locomotive?”

Umm… surely the locomotive doesn’t need to stop at the platform, because passengers don’t get on it? I’m pretty certain that happens at some Lakeshore stations anyway…. or am I missing something here?

@Tom West: Part of the problem lies in the slope right in front of the station, which is uphill from a standing start. MUs can deal with it (although ideally even for MUs such standing starts uphill would be avoided), but this really isn’t good for locomotive-hauled consists. The slopes are too steep anyway, but even if slopes were 2%, such a standard start uphill would be trouble.

About crewing, I was on a lakeshore train that overshot at Bronte last week (by about three cars actually, not an impressive showing from Bombardier) and the third crewman was the one running the length of the train, would definitely have been slower if the engineer had to change cabs…

“Re: Milton line/CP/two-man crews vs. other lines/Bombardier/three-man crews and reversing.
Surely when a train with a two-man crew needs to head back the other way, the driver gets out, walks down the other end of train and then moves?

“What does the third crew member on Bombardier trains do?”

The trains that I have seen have an engineman and a conductor in the locomotive or cab car and a passenger attendant in the handicap car to work the doors. When they get to the end of the line the engineman and conductor both walk 1100 feet to the other end. So much for quick changes and reversals. When CN ran the Lakeshore trains and there were two engineers, one at each end of the trains.At the end of the line the trains would be heading back to Toronto before the platform cleared.

NCarlson Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

“About crewing, I was on a lakeshore train that overshot at Bronte last week (by about three cars actually, not an impressive showing from Bombardier) and the third crewman was the one running the length of the train, would definitely have been slower if the engineer had to change cabs…”

I assume that it was the conductor from the cab car and not the passenger attendant that ran the length of the train. I believe that it is the conductor who is responsible for protecting the train in a reversing movement so he has to get to the end of the train. I wish that Bombardier and GO would combine the positions of conductor and engineman and leave one at each end of the train if the are going to have a three person crew.

Two people to drive the locomotive? I thought that went out with steam…

I have been reading the story of the start of GO’s operations which amongst other things, revealed a ten minute turnaround time when GO started operations (albeit with ten cars, not twelve). Also, today’s off-peak departure times from Oakville (eastwards), Pickering (westwards) and lakeshore trains from Toronto still follow the times used on day one.

“Two people to drive the locomotive? I thought that went out with steam…

“I have been reading the story of the start of GO’s operations which amongst other things, revealed a ten minute turnaround time when GO started operations (albeit with ten cars, not twelve). Also, today’s off-peak departure times from Oakville (eastwards), Pickering (westwards) and lakeshore trains from Toronto still follow the times used on day one.“

You have to remember that the turn around time of ten minutes plus the six minute dwell time at union was to give a one way time of 90 minutes. This also allowed a recovery time for rush hour service which would have longer station dwell times than the two car self propelled cars had in base service. How many remember the two car SP trains.

I’m assuming this is for just the lakeshore line, or is this cost for Lakeshore and Georgetown? Or the whole network?

What about the health cost factor? Electrification must improve health costs. Toronto spends $2.2B a year on respiratory illness and death related to transportation pollution.

Getting more people out of their cars and onto electric trains has got to save some money health wise. Over 25 years this would be a huge savings for the provincial government (and possibly would cover the extra cost of electrification).

The problem with “social costs” as a balance sheet item is that they are not available to GO Transit (or their auditors would have something to say about it). This is a common issue in transit where the benefits are disconnected from the costs, and thus the costs become a political issue.

If GO Transit was run as a branch of the Ministry of Health… oh dear let’s not go there!

Steve: You would show up for your train, only to be told it wasn’t running today because the Feds screwed up on supplying vital materials to read your pass.